Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Expansion to war crimes section

@Nableezy: I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in this diff. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under WP:BALASP.

For editors generally, see also this discussion, regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. nableezy - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of WP:BALASP is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this diff.

I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.

The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.

My problem with this diff is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named Tom Dannenbaum), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.

According to WP:RS, a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for WP:RS should be heightened.

How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?

I oppose the incorporation of this diff, along with BilledMammal and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the WP:ONUS in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That is called an expert view and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. nableezy - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are relying on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:

(i) Prefer secondary sources,

(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

(iii) Citation counts

(iv) POV and peer review

Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?

As per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.

You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with WP:RS.

Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.

Kindly do. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read WP:SPS youll see Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. You can see his relevant publications. nableezy - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? nableezy - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight your removal of that content was correct.@HollerithPunchCard Mindhack diva (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

also as per WP:SPS :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Mindhack diva (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think is relevant there? nableezy - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mindhack diva: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. Mindhack diva (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the applicable Wikipedia policy: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., see WP:ONUS. Editors who aim to reinstate the contentious content should first establish a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ONUS is not a "reason" for reversion and there is no consensus here for removal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that discussion, especially after the "Undiscussed revert" edit summary. Some concerns were raised about the content. Can you direct me to where there's an agreement for its inclusion? WP:ONUS is a policy. Those looking to restore the disputed content should first work on building a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that as already explained at my talk page. An agreement for inclusion isn't required, it was added via the usual editing process, reasons for removal are required and ONUS ain't it, especially when you have this discussion sitting here where there is clearly no consensus for removal so QUO is a better way of looking at things pending some clarity in this discussion (in which I have not as yet commented, for instance, until now). Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, we all slip up from time to time. Just linking the discussion for the record. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You havent made an argument for removal, sorry. And you are edit-warring. You are not entitled to repeatedly revert material so long as it is once a day. Beyond that, there appears to be consensus among users in this section for the material, your repeated unjustified reverts included. nableezy - 15:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Haven't made an argument for removal? Really?

I raised numerous issues with your edit. I first pointed out that an associate professor's opinion on a self-founded online forum is not WP:RS and in any event, your substantial quotation of this opinion, in the context of this extremely controversial topic is not WP:DUE.

In response, you alleged that opinion falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

And when I asked which criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP does this opinion actually satisfies, you fall back to rely on WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this vein, you provided a link showing that this associate professor has published a few articles on international law with a few dozens of citations, which you claim to make him a subject matter expert on this topic.

First of all, I disagree that this associate professor is a subject matter expert that you allege. Based on the link to his cited publications you have provided me, he has written nothing on the topic of Israel and Palestine, apart from this opinion piece on an online forum.

Secondly, WP:SELFPUBLISH is a policy of last resort. Wikipedia's policy on use of self-published sources is peppered with caution.

According to WP: WP:SELFPUBLISH are "largely not acceptable as sources" and "caution should be exercised" when using them, because

"if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This is especially true in the topic at hand (i.e. Israel-Hamas conflict), which has been the main headline for media and governments around the world for the past two weeks. There are no shortage of reliable sources on this subject matter, which you could easily find, instead of picking an associate prof's opinion on an online forum.

For these reasons, your extension quotation of this online forum opinion piece is inappropriate and should be removed, as it is not a reliable source, and qualifies neither as WP:SCHOLARSHIP nor WP:SELFPUBLISH.

In any event, your dedication of almost a paragraph to quote this associate professor's one-sided opinion on an online forum on this serious, controversial topic, is [WP:UNDUE]] and strongly appears to be POV-pushing.

As I have stated earlier, there is no consensus to your edit, for the concerns stated above, and until you have reasonable response to these concerns, you have not met the WP:ONUS to maintaining this disputed content.

As a result, this disputed content should be removed, and Infinity Knight and Mindhack diva's removal of this content should not be reverted, which is being wrongfully done here. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Afaics, wall of text notwithstanding, the majority disagrees. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. There is a super majority here in support of keeping this material. nableezy - 22:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are the supermajority? Name them. Because I don't see your supermajority, and there are multiple editors here opposing your edits.

I note the lack of response to my various concerns with your edit, and a head count of bare voices supporting your contentious edit, without any attempt to engage the WP, is not a reason to insist on its inclusion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to you, but my response was to Infinity Knight there, who still has not made an argument for removal. And in this section, in favor of retaining is myself, Iskandar23, Selfstudier, Objective3000, DFlhb, Chuckstablers, and I *think* Jurisdicta. Whereas opposed are you, Infinity Knight and BilledMammal. This is material by a noted scholar in the field who has been cited by other reliable sources. Your objection on the basis of reliability is entirely without merit. nableezy - 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He's removing the content that I've made arguments for removal. The problem of the content has been raised, and the problem is the same, regardless of who does the removal.

And nope, Chuckstabler, Jurisdicta and Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion of the Prof Associate's opinion, Tom Dannenbaum's opinion published on his online forum. They only opined on their desire to have extended coverage of Israel war crime, which is beside the point of whether this opinion should be included despite not being WP:RS.

Just because he's published a academic articles on international crimes with some citations, doesn't mean that his opinion published on whatever forum, whatever platform, can be quoted substantially on this serious, controversial wiki article, in disregard of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion 80columns, I oppose this removal of expert opinion as per nableezy and Selfstudier. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chuckstabblers wrote he strongly agrees with me and there is no undue weight given to Israeli war crimes when that material was included. But sure, whatever you say. This is getting tedious so unless something new is raised I’ll continue abiding by the consensus of this section. If somebody else doesn’t want to they can do that and face the consequences of that action. nableezy - 14:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the removal; we look to proportion in reliable sources to determine what our balance should be, and so far, the focus on Israel's actions has been pretty overwhelming in RS, as reflected in the child article. To preserve WP:NPOV, the summary-style section here should reflect that. DFlhb (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, see Deutsche Welle: Tom Dannenbaum, an associate professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, told DW that there had "clearly been violations" of international law perpetrated by both sides.

He said that the siege of Gaza qualifies as "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a war crime itself."

The Hamas attack also "implicated a number of war crimes, including murder as a war crime, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, hostage taking," Dannenbaum added.

nableezy - 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are war crimes on both sides. One would imagine that the Israeli war crimes are now getting more attention as they are perpetrated against 2.2 million people, half of whom are children. Certainly doesn't mean we should ignore Hamas atrocities. But, we follow WP:BALASP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, if this associate professor is opining that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, as you are putting forth, then your selective coverage of his opinion against Israel, and selective exclusion of his opinion against Hamas is clearly partisan, in breach of WP:NPOV and strikes as POV-pushing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Then add that per the source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt the source cited, I was just demonstrating other sources consider him an expert in the field. We already say Hamas committed obvious war crimes, but if you want to add him to the list of people who said then sure. nableezy - 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, the content is being added to the article without consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here. nableezy - 04:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

you not liking it doesn’t change fit much sorry. Revert again if you like but edit warring against consensus is disruptive and will be reported. nableezy - 09:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be civil Infinity Knight (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am. Please do not make unwarranted accusations. nableezy - 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the one who is edit warring is you and Selfstudier who restored contested edit without consensus. This is the third time I'm repeating WP:ONUS, which states, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

The disputed content? This. Who is seeking to include this disputed content? You. Therefore, whose responsibility for achieving consensus? You.

Why is consensus not achieved? Because these reasons and these reasons. Most of which have not been responded to, let alone rebutted, to date. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They have all been responded to and rebutted. nableezy - 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus at present, to include. ONUS handwaving doesn't cut it, that's not a reason to exclude. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your dislike is not something that matters for consensus. nableezy - 13:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please try to stay WP:CIVIL Infinity Knight (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have. You also removed a comment of mine. Kindly restore it. But, and this is totally civil making your repeated accusations WP:ASPERSIONS, you not liking the result of a discussion does not mean it does not have consensus against your position. Full stop. nableezy - 14:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You still have not given a reason for removal. ONUS is not a reason for removal, and regardless it has been met. The RS claim by the other user has been demonstrated to be wholly without basis. So, there is a super-majority in favor, and no policy basis for removal. Whats that spell? C-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s. nableezy - 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually have an issue with the conditional clause of the Dannenbaum quote, beginning 'depending on what happens from here...'. That part of the quote is speculative, and its inclusion is essentially a way of sidestepping WP:CRYSTAL.

Whilst I reserve judgement on removing the entire quote, I would note that WP:ONUS in fact does apply here, and policy ought to be taken seriously. Claiming consensus in the face of good-faith objections from multiple editors is a misapplication of the policy. God knows I don't always agree with @Infinity Knight, but the tone of some of the comments directed at them above was not called for. Riposte97 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it applies, but it has been met here. And yes, even good faith objections from multiple editors does not invalidate that there is a. a super-majority in favor, and b. each policy reason given for removal has been refuted. So yes, there is a consensus for the inclusion of this material. If you dont think so, ask an uninvolved admin to weigh in I guess. nableezy - 23:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you do not have a supermajority supporting inclusion of your disputed edit.

You now have Riposte97, Infinity Knight, BilledMammal and HollerithPunchCard opposing your edit, each giving their reasons on why your content is problematic.

I have argued my reasons against your substantial quotation of this WP:SELFPUBLISH opinion, sourced from an online forum, which falls short of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE. I will not belabour those points here.

You and Selfstudier's restoration of this disputed content in disregard of WP:ONUS and misrepresenting consensus that doesn't exist remains an issue that needs to be addressed. I agree that we should have an admin look at this issue. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way, but the source is reliable by an established expert in the field, and this "forum" is in fact a scholarly online outlet hosted by the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School, and the author has been quoted in other reliable sources discussing this very topic. Feel free to ask for an admin. But, repeating from above, This is getting tedious so unless something new is raised I’ll continue abiding by the consensus of this section. If somebody else doesn’t want to they can do that and face the consequences of that action. Oh, and Riposte97 hasnt said anything besides I reserve judgement on removing the entire quote, Infinity Knight is now indefinitely topic-banned partially as a result of their contribution here, and BilledMammal hasn't responded since opening the section. But sure, count how you like. nableezy - 03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal hasn't responded since opening the section I'm in agreement with HollerithPunchCard; it provides undue emphasis. Remove the quote and leave that coverage for the dedicated article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well thats two users in good standing now. Still a ways away from not being a consensus for inclusion. I cut the quote down slightly, but again youd be ignoring the most serious charge against Hamas while continuing to include a quote about Hamas war crimes in the prior paragraph. nableezy - 03:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We have 305 words about allegations against Israel, and 53 words about allegations against Hamas. My biggest concern is addressing this WP:BALASP violation; allegations against Israel have not received six times the coverage of allegations against Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That is an incredibly simplistic way of determining this. And it isnt true. Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. If anything 6:1 is a bit light. nableezy - 04:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ive raised the issue of reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tom_Dannenbaum_in_Just_Security_for_an_attributed_view_at_2023_Israel–Hamas_war nableezy - 03:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking this step. As I have indicated above and in response to this post on the RS Noticeboard, if this author must be cited, then perhaps his opinion given to Deutsche Welle should be used rather than his opinion published on his co-founded online forum. The former strikes as a more balanced and reliable source. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like everybody else agrees this is not a self published source and the author is an established expert and it is reliable for an attributed view. nableezy - 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And where did you get the idea he founded Just Security? Ryan Goodman and Steve Vladeck were the founding co-editors. They also have a book series with OUP. You are seriously misunderstanding what Just Security is. nableezy - 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems reliable as a source for a quote from someone who is independently a plausible commentator. If anyone is worried about how proportionately different views on this particular issue are represented, this interview is similarly a source for quote from David Scheffer, who addresses similar issues and counterpoints in detail.– SJ + 00:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This primarily concerns NPOV (due weight) and not Verification in RS. At this point, the most productive course for those who wish to pursue this content would be a carefully defined set of choices in an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article becoming too long. Suggestions.

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. Lafi90 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone working on Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, should make a dent. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the table in that section; we'll see if someone ends up reverting it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Much of it was OR anyway (in the sense that someone was trying to connect it to the current war using sources that predate the war and adding their own commentary. I've trimmed it, but happy to delete it too.VR _talk 01:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the WP:PROSELINE sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per Alcibiades979's suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, Iraq War#Background and Iraq War#Pre-war events, similarly Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background and Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude.VR _talk 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

After taking a closer look at both sections, it appears that the Historical Context section may not be necessary, and I'm in favor of trimming most of it. Do you have any suggestions for which references should be retained? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed before, it was removed and then restored, see archives, I suggest not doing that without discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally get your point about the content objection, and I'm not seeing a consensus for adding it, unless I'm overlooking something. If there are any references you think are worth keeping in the Context section, feel free to share your thoughts. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: Why after observing that the page is too long are you expanding the background section with unnecessary biographical expositions on individual political figures like [1] - this is not helping move the background section towards a useful summary, but bloating it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just created a fresh section to address your question right here. Hey, someone raised an objection about Context content. Can you help me find a consensus for its inclusion? I could've missed it. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: What are you talking about? I am talking about the unnecessary biographical material that you are adding in the middle of complaining about length (although yes, while also apparently removing properly summarized material on war crimes - this is a disastrous and pretty disruptive edit that should be reverted). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment, just search "Historical context·" in the archives. Also, why did you remove the well sourced war crimes material? It says "see talk" but I find no discussion of that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the war crimes deletion as undiscussed, best open a new section if you wish to discuss it (in case I missed it somewhere point me to the talk discussion you mentioned in the edit summary).Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Those "properly summarized material on war crimes" that you allege is anything but. Reasons against its exclusion has been discussed at length by me at here and here, and some of these reasons have been raised for a few days.

You can disagree with these arguments, but you cannot purport that they don't exist. Thus far, the only response to these arguments is essentially that there are more of us than there are more of you. That's not a constructive discussion and not a reason to revert the exclusion of this disputed material, which you have done. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is being updated with content without community agreement. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Infinity Knight. The content was first introduced by Nableezy.

After I raised numerous issues and concerns with this content, primarily for not being WP:RS, Infinity Knight removed this content.

@Selfstudier restored this content without addressing any of the expressed concerns with this content, and without consensus, and despite most of my arguments not being addressed in the discussions.

Respectfully, I see this is as a disregard of WP:ONUS and an instance of WP:EDITWAR.

I would kindly ask that Selfstudier revert your restoration of this disputed content until consensus is achieved through reasonable discussion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the length of the article. There is a separate discussion about the war crime material where you have just now commented so this repetition is quite unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, you can try that here as well, but there is a clear consensus for that material. Ignoring that is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 13:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with @HollerithPunchCard. The best move for @Selfstudier is to self-revert and work towards reaching a consensus for inclusion. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Also best discussed at the relevant discussion and not here (the details of the current consensus are there). Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s already consensus, a super majority in fact and the next person to ignore that is being reported. nableezy - 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing an edit comment summary with a link to the discussion is one thing, but flat-out ignoring the clear recommendations from multiple angles on the talk page is a whole different story. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I've begun restructuring the Israel section of the Events section at my second sandbox. Anyone is welcome to update, edit remove, and whatever else. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate timeline

To the above points: day-by-day details should be merged into the timeline article, with this one summarizing what has happened to date [both with much less text, and combining parts of the same campaign or topic across days for clarity]. This can have section-level references into the timeline where appropriate. But it isn't readable in the current form. – SJ + 18:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

much less text We should be cautious and avoid prematurely splitting info; we want to replace proseline with proper bird's-eye-view synthesis (done by sources, not us), but those sources largely don't exist yet, because it's still a breaking event. Even if the article should be trimmed eventually, I think it's too early to do it now fully. Also disagree that it "isn't readable in its current form"; people don't read top-to-bottom, they jump to specific sections they're interested in (like the latest subsection in "Events", or "War crimes", or "Casualties") and this page's child articles are still enough of a mess that rushed splits wouldn't benefit readers. Few people read timeline articles; they're an editor-centric solution, not what readers are looking for. DFlhb (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed down the first week here, however I want to get some feedback before adding it in. Anyone is also free to edit as needed. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That looks excellent indeed, a solid replacement. – SJ + 01:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah)

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah

Option 1 – Add X
Option 2 – Do not add X
Option 3 – Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)

RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait Selfstudier, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I think WeatherWriter was confused because, while Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.

I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.

It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, Parham wiki made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bermicourt, not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose adding most; support adding the US: The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza.[2][3] And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it).[4][5][6] The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. nableezy - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. nableezy - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  “US military equipment pours into Israel”[7]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.

Do not add: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany. Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Hezbollah, oppose all others as per other users below. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note – Hezbollah was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all except Hezbollah. None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. ([8]) Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn Parham wiki (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Close RFC there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn and also Add Syria Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah (or anyone else) rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of (not loosely related to) this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research. nableezy - 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [9] Original research, was it? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict. nableezy - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No original research. Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. See here [10]. Title "Authorities name 315 soldiers, 58 police officers killed in Gaza war". The IDF has published the names of 315 soldiers "killed during the ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists since October 7, mostly on the border with the Gaza Strip", they then further expand stating the number includes soldiers killed on both the Lebanon border and in the West Bank. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree on exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they won’t start a war". An expert is quoted saying: “Hezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,” said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut (italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"These clashes have led to a rising death toll on both sides, sparking fears of a new war front" ... "Which leads to the second front: Israel against Iran and its other proxies. That is, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Islamist militias in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi militia in Yemen. All of them in recent days have launched drones and rockets toward Israel or at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria." West Bank a possible 'THIRD front' for Israel

It's not about Hezbollah entering or not entering the war, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation (or "full frontal war", as Reuters put it). As of October 26, Hezbollah had lost 46 fighters. That would have been a rather high death toll for an 18-day period during Hezbollah's first war with Israel. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated these clashes as part of the war Hamas started, and as another editor pointed out, Israel too considers them part of that war. Add in the active involvement of Hamas fighters on the Lebanese-Israeli front, and it is starting to look increasingly absurd that this front is left out of the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your first and third source frame Hezbollah/Lebanon as a potential future front, not a current front; they contradict you. The second source is considered generally unreliable. The next paragraph is original research contradicted by sources. It's true that the skirmishes are a response to the Israel-Hamas war, but it is also irrelevant. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote is contradicted by sources? Both Israel and Hezbollah consider the clashes as part of the war; the only ones arguing otherwise are seemingly Wikipedia editors. (Also, read again the part about threshold of escalation. There is no contradiction at all. The first source makes a distinction between a full-scale and a limited war.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't include something that fails WP:V, or side with original research over sources; this is sensitive enough that we need to be careful. Sources say Hezbollah has not yet joined the war. That makes them not a belligerent.

• New York Times, yesterday
  • Hezbollah sits on the sidelines of the conflict and will enter the war if... (future tense). That's from yesterday.
  • They quote an expert: inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war (hypothetical)
  • Quotes another expert: The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah (implying they are not yet involved).
• Washington Post, October 29
  • “All Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,” said a senior Lebanese official (implying they haven't entered the war yet)
• Bloomberg, October 23
  • Israel’s military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah “is mainly in the contact line.” Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called “rules of engagement,” which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
  • Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel (as explicit as can be)
• CNN, October 11
  • Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamas’ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border. They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
• FT, October 11 (after the skirmishes escalated)
  • Quotes an expert: If it’s a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war] (future tense).
  • Says: Hizbollah’s entry into the war would have profound implications, and Hizbollah’s participation could also trigger, and Joining the war would be (all hypotheticals).
  • You (and others) say the skirmishes make Hezbollah a belligerent in this war. That's WP:OR. The FT describes them as belligerents in a flareup of the separate, decades-long Hezbollah-Israel conflict. You are confusing the flareup being a reaction to this war, with the flareup being part of this war. FT quote two experts who say years-old "red lines" (preceding this conflict) have not been crossed, which concurs with the Bloomberg quote above.
• Bloomberg, published October 11 but still on their main page:
  • if Hezbollah were to enter the war (hypothetical)

Even if you dispute this, logically, if there's any ambiguity, it belongs in the body not the infobox. Note Hezbollah is already listed as a belligerent in 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes, where it belongs, and we describe that as a "spillover" of this war. RfCs based on WP:OR are a waste of everyone's time, and I wish we'd treat them as malformed. If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we? DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) edited 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per users above. W9793 (talk)
• Add Hezbollah since it is directly involved in the war at the North of the country. Houthis can also be added since they openly declared that they fired the missiles. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add the Houthis and the United States. The US has stated it shot down missiles heading towards Israel, and NPR (a RS) stated[11] this action "could represent the first shots taken by the U.S. military in defense of Israel".VR _talk 02:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on infobox casualties

How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?

1. Attributed with an endnote as in the current version as of this writing
2. Attributed for all numbers inline as in this version
3. Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in this version
4. Not in the infobox at all

Nableezy 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 1 - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed. A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the Washington Post reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. nableezy - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example the UN reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." nableezy - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 or 3, weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.

In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of WP:V, for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.

Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.

In general, the option of attributed with an endnote is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them. and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them. 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I went through the first 10 "Sources for Israeli casualties" and found 90% of these actually attribute them at some point in time, but not consistently, which is why we arrive at different results.

VR _talk 03:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 3 or 2 this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support 4 with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. WCM_email 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes are sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 For reasons said by AquilaFasciata. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. Ecrusized (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes. Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? The Guardian 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Other sources, like this one, say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Succinct and reasonable, well said. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [12], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" (WP:WTA); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.VR _talk 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." Alaexis_¿question? 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Shakir goes on to say "“Generally this data is catalogued in a way that there are detailed breakdowns that include identifying information about each person. That’s part of why we believe this to be reliable.” The identifying information includes such details as ID numbers, so any exaggeration or falsehood would be easily detectable. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: per Hemiauchenia. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 4 per User:Meeepmep here, which should be fixed to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article. Also OK with 3.5 it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this 2 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Per Joseph Biden, here, "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 (but also voted above): its important to note this RfC question is only about the infobox, not about the body of the article. For the infobox, just like the WP:LEAD, we must necessarily be concise. I support in-line attribution (along with necessary context) for the body of the article, but not the lead or infobox.VR _talk 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 The second item (2) looks to be more informative and appropriate for the readers; i.e. "Attributed for all numbers inline..." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. per Selfstudier and there is no reason to think the GHM figures are any less accurate than the 'fog of war' allows - despite what Joe Biden may think. Indeed, HGM according to the Gdn and others "also issued a 212-page list of the names and identity numbers of every Palestinian it says has been killed in the Israeli bombardment. Unless doctors and admins are complicit in fabricating death certificates etc, these numbers are about as cast-iron certain as they could possibly be, and it would easily provable if significant faking or exaggerating were happening. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3. An explicit attribution of such numbers to the sides of the conflict is important. Version "1" does not really provide such attribution. Even if one follows the footnotes in version "1", it is not immediately clear which side is responsible for which number. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  If one follows the footnotes, this information is absolutely clear. And it's also clear in the body of the article. VR _talk 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 is best, as it is NPOV and gives plenty of information without cluttering up the box unduly, and follows practice with other contentious conflicts. 1 is acceptable as gives the full info, but requires more work of the inexperienced reader. 3 is unacceptable as POV. 4 is silly, as it departs from our principles of verifiability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Previous discussions

• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline

Discussion2

Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. nableezy - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight, Vice regent, Graeme Bartlett, Mistamystery, WillowCity, JM2023, and Hovsepig: Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You missed one off the top of my head, Jayen466. nableezy - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I did; I overlooked them at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).

Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.

I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.

I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. nableezy - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[13] As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported. VR _talk 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources:- Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more M142 HIMARS systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent AP John Kirby said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. nableezy - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Is AP a reliable source? , according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See straw man. nableezy - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the functional difference between your method of attribution, where our readers won't see it, and no attribution? BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you posted something on percentage checking footnotes, but I dont know if that also refers to end notes, or if they are more likely to check some notes than others, as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers. So I dont put a whole lot of stock in to this our readers wont see it mantra, and I dont see the need to respond to it. But the functional difference is one has an attribution with an endnote and no attribution has no attribution at all. nableezy - 02:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

but I dont know if that also refers to end notes If refers to all footnotes.

as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers The paper addresses this question; readers are less likely to check references on articles that are above start and stub class (this article is B-Class) and readers are less like to check references on longer articles (this article is very long). Readers are also more likely to check footnotes that are related to people's social and private lives; "baby", "wife", "instragram", etc; readers are less likely to engage with references on this topic than they are on other topics.

The figure I gave above is that one in seventy will engage with footnotes; what I didn't say, as the detail seemed unnecessary, is that for this article that is a hopelessly optimistic figure; this article ticks all the boxes to drag that engagement down. Further, one in seventy engage with any footnote; the chance that those engagements relate to these footnotes is far lower. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. Does it break down notes in an infobox vs footnotes in the lead vs later in the article? Does it break it down by how in the news an article is? There are way too many things that are unanswerable about how a reader will engage with this article that it seems totally pointless to even pretend like it is relevant to the question here. nableezy - 03:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. The paper is focused on citations but also discusses footnotes.

And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. It's not relevant that all the evidence we have tells us that readers won't see the attribution when it is in the form you propose? Saying "we know readers don't normally see these, but maybe this article is an exception" isn't a productive or convincing argument, particularly when it is in regards to something as important as compliance with core content policies. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like something you should bring elsewhere for a discussion of infoboxes and reader interaction with them across all articles, seems particularly lacking in relevance here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The question here is whether a particular method of attribution is functional; whether readers will actually see the attribution. Strong evidence that they won’t is highly relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See [14] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As suggested by Meeepmep here, I would appreciate the modification of

• 4 change to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article

* 3.5 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text seems like a reasonable choice to me. it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this

Infinity Knight (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Joe Biden isnt a reliable source, whereas reliable sources have said they do have confidence in the numbers. But regardless, is there a reason you think we should attribute only one set of numbers in text but not the other set? nableezy - 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden isn't a WP:RS but he has access to a lot more information than you and me. As for the sets of numbers, there seems to be considerably more dispute over one set than the other, and I haven't read of the POTUS questioning the other set in the same manner. Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but why would the political head of an ally of one of the combatants be the person that would determine which set of numbers is in question? nableezy - 23:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did some additional analysis, looking at news articles published by the New York Times in the past week mentioning "Gaza Health Ministry". Of these, 16 say "Hamas-run" or similar, while just four omit any mention of Hamas' control of ministry. This is additional evidence that we should be attributing these figures to the Hamas-run ministry.

"Hamas-run" or similar:

1. Israel-Hamas War (October 31)
2. Israel Struck a Dense Area in Gaza, Saying It Killed Hamas Militants
3. Israeli Troops Battle Into Gaza as Airstrike Draws Conflicting Claims
4. Israel-Hamas War (November 1)
5. Israel Confirms Deaths of 15 Soldiers in Ground Invasion of Gaza
6. Wednesday Briefing
7. ‘A Very Slow Game:’ Why the Pace of Israel’s Ground Operation Counts
8. Israelis Advance on Gaza City, as Netanyahu Rules Out Cease-Fire
9. Israel-Hamas War (October 30)
10. Democratic Rifts Over Israel Burst to the Forefront in Congress
11. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)
12. Israel-Hamas War (October 29)
13. ‘You Think of Dying at Any Time’
14. Israel-Hamas War (October 28)
15. What We Know About the War Between Israel and Hamas
16. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)

Only "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. After Years of Vowing to Destroy Israel, Iran Faces a Dilemma
2. Blinken Meets Arab Ministers in Bid to Calm Outrage Over Gaza Airstrikes
3. Israel-Hamas War (November 4)
4. 34 Hours of Fear: The Blackout That Cut Gaza Off From the World

BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders flags in infobox

I think it's fair and logical to add palestinian (and lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine IMO Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Faycal.09: This reminds me of how some editors insist on adding the Argentinian flag for Che Guevara. While he was Argentinian, he did not "represent" Argentina - and if you're arguing that Hamas "represents" the "State of Palestine", then (don't take me too seriously) the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas might want to have a word with you. :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Che Guevarra does not represent Argentina to you but he is Argentinian, that is a reason to put up the flag to mention his nationality and his origin, not for his political orientation.

It's the same thing for the personalities here (commanders and leaders) who are mentioned in the Infobox, it is about their citizenship and not their political orientation. Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship is rather trivial for an infobox, wouldn't you agree? The flags are there so readers can easily pinpoint allegiances. It's a navigational tool. If this was a war between two ordinary states, there wouldn't have been a need for any flags beyond those in the "belligerents" row. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As you say, the infobox is there so that readers can also identify the citizenship of the actors in the article. the infobox must be simplified and not enter into allegiances, especially since these allegiances and political orientations are already detailed in the article. Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You must have misread what I wrote. Citizenship is literally unimportant here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your meaning and I think it's you who don't understand what I wrote or what I mean. That's your opinion. In all infobox only citizen are represented. Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would think a military commander's citizenship is more informative than their military allegiance (ie who they are commanding). It simply isn't true that only citizenship is always recorded in infoboxes. In the case of former Yugoslavia, everyone was technically Yugoslav, though allied to proto-states that had little or no recognition and members of paramilitary units. The line of thinking would lead to the absurd possibility that someone with only Israeli citizenhip who was a leader in a Hamas supporting paramilitary unit would have an Israeli flag next to their name. Are we even certain that all of these leaders are Palestine citizens. Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, it is certain that all these leaders are Palestinian citizens. You talk about Yugoslavia but this country no longer exists and has been divided into several other countries. On the contrary, Palestine is a sovereign country which is recognized by the UN and the international community and therefore it has a flag.

For the infobox, I repeat it is completely normal to put their Palestinian flag as is the case for the Israeli leaders opposite in the infobox. Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In former Yugoslavia, many people's 'official' citizenship did not match who they were fighting for at the time and many significant groups were 'paramilitaries' rather than 'armies' - it would have been completely uninformative to give their citizenship rather than the fighting unit they led/belonged to. We would have ended up with infoboxes that said Yugoslavian fighters were fighting Yugoslavian fighters each side being led by Yugoslavian leaders and Yugoslavian leaders respectively. Obviously, where fighting takes place between conventional armies attached to nation states, nationality will normally be apt and sufficient.

AFAIK, all the Israeli leaders hold 'official' govt or army positions within Israel, if any don't then the name/flag of whoever they give allegiance to should be given, but this conflict is not between nation states (according to Israel as well as WP:RS). Also AFAIK, none of the Palestinian leaders hold any official positions within any official Palestinian defence or army organisations. It is at least uninformative, and at worst misleading, to put their citizenship in preference to the 'paramilitary' group they lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestine is a very different case from the former Yugoslavia, it is even a somewhat unique case.

First of all, all the inhabitants of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) are of the same ethnicity (Palestinians) and are Muslims and Christians.

Secondly, Hamas although it is declared an illegitimate party in some countries but it is recognized in many other countries and the most important thing is that it is a recognized party in Palestine and by Palestinian people.

Third, Palestine is colonized by Israel and has no army defending the country. They have military factions created by movements (parties) which act independently of the Palestinian state. Hamas, like all other factions, acts in the name of the Palestinian people and not in their name.

If you understand this, you will understand why you have to put up the Palestinian flag. Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I know all this and don't understand why you would want to imply that these people command/lead military forces which simply don't exist! The discussion isn't about ethnicity. Hamas, like all other factions, acts in the name of the Palestinian people why would we give legitimacy to these group's claims as to who they were fighting for? Innumerable groups and factions claim to speak for the Palestinian people, that does not mean we accept that they meaningfully/legitimately do.

Look, we aren't going to agree, from my point of view, I don't see why we would be less informative and potentially misleading by attaching the flag of citizenship of each leader, rather than that of the force they lead. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli casualty figures update

Today's news is that at least 331 Israeli soldiers have been killed since Oct 7. Currently it stands at 311 in the infobox. The total number of Israeli casualties has to be updated as well. Also, 50 of the hostages have been killed so far. This needs to be added to the Israeli infobox. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

At least let unregistered users edit the article if you guys are too lazy to do the editing. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Source please. nableezy - 15:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12684991/Gazans-told-south-Israeli-airplanes-pounded-450-Hamas-sites-blitz-ahead-ground-invasion-IDF-prepares-brutal-guerilla-fighting-terrorists-inside-civilian-areas-start-long-war.html 188.70.39.253 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Another source: https://news.am/eng/news/789574.html 188.70.39.253 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I put the 331 figure in earlier, based on an Aljazeera live blog citing an IDF press briefing: [15][16] Aljazeera was the only decent press source I could find; for some reason, that figure has not been widely reported. Aljazeera also had a higher number of Israeli wounded, but a very slightly lower total Israeli death toll, both of which were reflected in my edits. However, User:Jokkmokks-Goran and User:RamHez each undid a part of those updates, so at the moment we are back to the outdated figures. Andreas JN466 17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that now the article contains the number of IDF casualties (315) according to the Times of Israel. The latest numbers from Haaretz are slightly lower but similar [17]. What exactly do you think should be added? Alaexis_¿question? 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis According to the sources given by the IP editor who started this section, the number of Israeli soldiers killed had gone up to 331. I checked for better sources and found an Aljazeera update from 29 Oct 2023 - 08:50 (08:50 GMT) in this live blog that said:

Israeli army spokesperson gives updates

Here are the key takeaways from the Israeli army spokesperson’s news briefing:

At least 331 Israeli soldiers killed, 32 taken captive since October 7.

However, I haven't found many other sources giving that number. :/ The same Aljazeera page also gave a new 29 Oct 2023 - 10:47 (10:47 GMT) total of Israeli wounded (5,431). That is currently back in the article but the 331 are not. The 315 number is still cited by other sources so maybe best to just wait. Regards, Andreas JN466 11:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Very strange situation. Almost a month since 7 October and Israel has still to clear the publication of the names of 300-400 of the total 1300-1400 offically estimated killed. Published lists of victims also differ across publications. No official list on Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. I have never experienced this in Israel's previous wars. Why are they not published?

Separating Israeli military casualties from civilian is very difficult. Many settlers belonged to early response teams. Once they grabbed their guns they are to be considered combatants. As an alternative, I was interested in an estimate of the number of women and children killed. But with 400 victims missing from the statistics, it may mot be so interesting.

Glancing through the Haaretz list of fatalities I counted to 25 victims below the age of 18. So little room for the 40 beheaded children. 14 of the victims were from conquered Gaza envelope settlements and 11 from settlements further away, hence probably rocket victims (5 Arabs and 6 Jews). Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Numbers updated.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I read on a fact-check site that a spokesperson spoke of 40 dead and beheaded babies and it quickly got mangled into 40 beheaded babies by some press. Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Impeding relief aid to Gaza may be a crime under ICC jurisdiction, prosecutor says

CAIRO Oct 29 (Reuters) - Impeding relief supplies to Gaza's population may constitute a crime under the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, the court's top prosecutor told a news conference in Egypt on Sunday.

Source: Reuters

I think this is worth mentioning in the War Crimes section. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already comparable material in the war crimes section about the Israeli blockade and denial of aid to the Strip. Please consider adding it to the article War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war instead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be undue to state it in this article, as it is one opinion, and there is not yet news of arms shipping in via these aid deliveries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not if it is the opinion of the prosecutor of the ICC, a globally mandated authority. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Two points - It isnt globally mandated - In fact, the portion world that recognises its authority is a minority. Secondly, the opinion of a prosecutor (i.e. lawyer) is simply the personal opinion of yet another expert. This would be undue for inclusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's as internationally recognised as any war crimes body can be, and suggesting that it is not is just pedantry. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Absent convictions for war crimes (which rarely ever happen), all war crime allegations are basically opinions of experts. In this case, the expert is quite notable and more widely recognized than others. VR _talk 05:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There are organisations like the UN operating there as well, who we have rightly given more importance due to their international stature. This lawyer may be slightly better versed in the Vienna convention, but the statement being very weakly worded it does not merit special mention. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The UN is a tin god; the ICC has convicted war criminals. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Convictions dont dictate notability, and especially since this is heavily derived notability (that of being a lawyer at said court). Organisations like the UN get more weight than the ICC, and your disapproval of the UN as a "tin god" does not change that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Organisations like the UN get more weight than the ICC" - that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but there's nothing supporting that other than your opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Map update

It appears Israel withdrew from Saladin road after a brief occupation https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-30-2023 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/gaza-government-says-israeli-tanks-withdraw-from-main-highway-after-brief-incursion/3037802#:~:text=GAZA%20CITY%2C%20Palestine,Office%20said%20in%20a%20statement. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it really just me and Levivich that see the issue with this attempt at keeping a real time update for a map of a war? nableezy - 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just you and Levivic. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Also me; it's not as much a problem for wars like the Russian-Ukraine war, where movement is slow and well documented, but the situation here is changing far too rapidly for us to have a map like this. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: Updated, thanks. You can also use Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator or any other vector editor to modify the file. Ecrusized (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The map should go, any map like this is dated as soon as made.Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it, per WP:ONUS; given the opposition expressed here there doesn't seem to be any affirmative consensus to include it. I wouldn't object to a map that didn't try to show details of the current invasion. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont think this is an appropriate use of ONUS, but Ive added a map of Gaza, if theres one that also has the surrounding Israeli communities it should be used, I just dont know what that would be. nableezy - 03:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

commons:File:The Gaza Strip & West Bank - a map folio LOC 2011591411-24.tif - the only alternatives I can currently find are from 1993, and I think that is too out of date for us to use here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Abo Yemen could you please explain this reversion? nableezy - 13:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

the old "outdated" map was better than the alternative Abo Yemen✉ 14:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

someone just needs to add the map date Abo Yemen✉ 14:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What if we use this map? It includes more detail about the current conflict, and doesn't have the issue of trying to reflect the minute-by-minute situation on the ground. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This link shows the arabic version of it (for me atleast). I am okay with using that version Abo Yemen✉ 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The english version* Abo Yemen✉ 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

fine with this too. Was going to suggest uploading an older version to a new name to use that actually. nableezy - 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I swapped it with File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict - as of Oct 27.svg (slightly newer than the one BM linked to), which I meant to upload locally but accidentally uploaded to Commons. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't see a consensus or a reason to swap the map with a version prior to the invasion. Furthermore, most users disagreeing with you in the previous discussion were not properly informed of this new discussion. The map only cites the Institute for the Study of War for the Israeli control. There neither a synth nor an OR problem with it. Ecrusized (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Pinging @WeatherWriter, Veggies, and The Great Mule of Eupatoria:

@Miki1234568: Can you explain this reversion? This is disputed material and shouldn't be restored without an affirmative consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: If users want it restored, that means there is no such consensus to remove it. Also see my comment above. It's not very nice to open a new discussion without notifying those who have supported keeping the file. Ecrusized (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works; this is disputed content, and per WP:ONUS an affirmative consensus is needed to include it. I've removed it again; please do not restore it again without obtaining such a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: You've restored the map, again. Can you please point to the affirmative consensus required to include it? BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I am restoring the map. Multiple users besides me have previously restored it. I think you need to look at yourself before accusing other. Ecrusized (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, you're right; I confused you with Miki1234568. Regardless, WP:ONUS applies; can you provide a link to the affirmative consensus for its inclusion? If you can not you are not permitted to restore it, per WP:ONUS. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

War articles without maps are not a good idea. If it's just the problem of real time update, I think simply adding "as of ..." to the caption can solve it. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Veggies (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is we don't know that the map is "as of"; we don't have any reliable sources that support the exact map we present - we have reliable sources supporting aspects of it, but not the totality. BilledMammal (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The map is drawn from the analyses done by the Institute for the Study of War, which is good enough to be cited and published by the Wall Street Journal [18]. What's the problem? -- Veggies (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Our map doesn't match the ISW map. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. It's an SVG with an embedded image of only so much resolution, not an ArcGIS layer overlay on proprietary satellite images. We make the best good-faith effort to emulate what ISW has published and reliable sources have cited. If there's an issue with inaccuracy, you should probably bring that up to User:Ecrusized or myself and we can correct it. But that's not what you've been doing. You've been claiming that the map is per se "disputed" despite other editor's attempts to explain the sourcing to you and you've been aggressively insisting that there's no "affirmative consensus" to include the map. That's a serious misread of the BRD process and smacks of ownership behavior. I would suggest that you take a breather. -- Veggies (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Are settlers a belligerent?

There have been a good many reports of settlers, unimpeded or in some cases assisted by the military, exploiting the war to take military-style actions against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. This piece of reportage speaks of them dressing up in military uniforms and conducting an operation (for ethnic expulsion) of the inhabitants of Susiya (where indeed the Palestinians have land title dating back to the Ottoman period). These operations have caused scores of civilian deaths, and perhaps carry more weight than some of the obscure groups listed as Palestinian Gaza militias in the infobox. One would of course need multiple sourcing for the claim about settlers as an independent group acting as a military body. (certainly higher standards than we use here to include the piddling Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades). Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess it falls under the “armed Israeli civilians” section in the article The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But not thought worthy of the infobox.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Armed Israeli civilians" is in the infobox. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That was mostly about the civilians that fought on October 7th in southern Israel, not the ongoing attacks by settlers in the West Bank. nableezy - 16:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Under 'unit' ( my bad however but settlers are not a 'unit' and (b) two of the sources' references are to (a) 'armed civilians' as (i) kibbutzim members in Israel fighting off Hamas terrorists while the third refers (ii) 'armed settlers outside Israel' attacking and killing defenceless Palestinians, an inversion of roles. To conflate a home citizenry defending its own turf and communities from invading Palestinians with invasive settlers attacking Palestinians (often to seize property) on their own home ground is somewhat grotesque. (i) and(ii) are different categories, the respective situations diametrically opposed.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

fair point, I’ve edited it to split the two factions The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Images on Article - Concise & Balanced? (Part 2)

• The fighting
• Video of Gaza building being bombed

• The direct effect of the war in Israel
• 
  Satellite image of fires after Hamas attack
• 
  Blood in Israel #1
• 
  Israeli rubble #1
• 
  Israeli rubble #2
• 
  Body bags in Israel
• 
  Blood in Israel #2

• The direct effect of the war in Gaza
• 
  Palestinian wounded child #1
• 
  Gaza building being bombed
• Gaza rubble #1
  Gaza rubble #1
• 
  Palestinian wounded child #2
• 
  Palestinian bodybags
• 
  Palestinian ambulance destroyed #1
• 
  Gaza rubble #2
• 
  Palestinian wounded child #3
• 
  Crying Palestinian

• Israeli relief efforts
• 
  Israeli kidnapped posters
• 
  Israeli relief supplies #1

• Pro-Israel rallies and memorials
• 
  Pro-Israel memorial #1
• 
  Pro-Israel rally #1

• Pro-Palestine rallies and memorials
• Pro-Palestine rally #1
• 
  Pro-Palestine rally #2

• UN Graphics
• 
  Vote count

• Politicians
• 
  Netanyahu #1
• Biden #1
• 
  Herzog #1
• 
  Sunak & Netanyahu #1

The images on the article have expanded significantly since the last time this was discussed. We should discuss whether it's still balanced and concise. Again, we've had a spike in wounded Palestinian children photos. Same goes for blood smeared on a floor pictures. I don't see what the value is in repeated uses of the same type of photo. Also, I don't see the point in the UN vote graphic. I think it should be removed as it's practically pointless. -- Veggies (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The U.N. Vote graphic could be replaced by a map; that might provide the information in a better visual way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Maps give outsized importance to large countries like the US, Canada, China, and Russia at the expense of smaller countries like Israel, Panama, Tuvalu, ect.

Since the UN is "one country one vote", a standard geographic map doesn't make sense in my opinion. Maybe some sort of cartogram like this would be appropriate?

TimeEngineer (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What in the world is this image? "Support Israel", "Blame Israel", etc. Beyond that, it should be an SVG. I'm going to remove this if no one has any objections. -- Veggies (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Best to remove it entirely. "Support" to any side is an open ended term. Ecrusized (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. And I agree. -- Veggies (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yemeni Houthis in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close as consensus against this proposal Mach61 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the Houthi movement be placed in the infobox as a belligerent of this war? I don't think they should. Houthis have fired a few missiles at Israel during this conflict, which have been intercepted. It is WP:SYNTH to place them on the infobox based on this information. Ecrusized (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• RFC above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Houthi movement should not be in the infobox. However, I'm open to reconsidering if they actually play a real role in this conflict. Right now their involvement is too limited/insignificant and it feels more like a recruitment/PR move than one of serious military support. RisingTzar (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - originally I would say oppose, but after the movement reportedly launched an attack on Israel AND various Houthi officials said, such as Abdelaziz bin Habtour, said they were "part of the axis of resistance" against Israel, and vowed additional attacks, it makes sense to include them.--Historyday01 (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support - kind of obvious with them literally announcing their involvement and continued interest in being involved. Ultimograph5 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support - Clearly the Ansarallah movement has announced and begun a missile/drone campaign on southern Israel so this war isn't limited to Gazan factions but I also believe we should re-instate Hezbollah on the infobox since it has caused Israeli combatant deaths in the north as well as civilian in their rocket attacks on the north. They began their campaign on the first day of this war.

It may be even better to add in brackets that its involvement is limited, e.g. Hezbollah (limited) or Ansar Allah (limited) RamHez (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't feel right to have Houthis and not Hezbollah when Hezbollah is arguably playing a much more significant role here. That's why this should be opposed as there is no symmetry. RisingTzar (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not get rid of the 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes page and just move it into a page about spillover conflicts? That way things should be more consistent and the page could discuss Hezbollah and Houthi actions, along with any other new actor if the conflict expands further? RisingTzar (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Because its not "spillover, as articulated by multiple editors above, the actions of Hezbollah and the Houthis are intentional belligerent acts that are a part of the same war. "Spillover" would be something unintentional, like the Houthi strikes that hit Egypt.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. in that case 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes's infobox really shouldn't be described as "spillover", the actions that are carried out are very deliberate and calculated. RisingTzar (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Add Houthis and Hezbollah. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support of course. They, straight up, just declared themselves an active party to the war in a televised statement as the given Reuters source in the infobox currently states. VintageVernacular (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Informal discussion about 2024 renaming

It's almost November now; there seems to be a very good chance this continues into 2024. It is far too early for a formal move request, but let us get just brainstorm a few ideas about what we should rename this article if the war carries on into 2024. That way, we get any major disputes out of the way before the last few days of December. Bremps... 02:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd vote for "2023-2024 Israel–Hamas war" if that happens, or "2023-2024 Hamas-Israel war" if the above requested move/name change happens. Historyday01 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to brainstorm, it would probably be retitled Israel-Hamas war (2023-present) similar to battles in Marinka and Avdiivka that began early last year. Jebiguess (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This one. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be the best title to use if it indeed continues into 2024. Simplistic, straight to the point. Nintenga (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It'll be Israel–Hamas war (2023-present) or Hamas–Israel war (2023-present) per WP:AND Abo Yemen✉ 06:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Rocket attacks

Is it a matter of policy to depress mention of rocket attacks on this page? Gazan militants have fired unguided rockets/etc. toward populated areas every day this week, but there's no mention of it on the page. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Same is true in the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel page, no rockets in 2022?, very unusual.Telecine Guy (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it, if you feel it's necessary. The reason it's not mentioned is probably because Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel for years, so news coverage of it isn't as prevalent of Israeli attacks, which are a fairly recent development. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV: "killed" vs "massacred"

@BilledMammal seems to be going around various articles changing "Hamas killed Israeli civilians" to "Hamas massacred Israeli civilians". I think "killed" is NPOV, while "massacred" attaches a value judgement. I think if we use the term "massacred", it needs to be with attribution and not in wikivoice. We likewise wouldn't state in wikivoice that Israel caused "carnage" in Gaza (even though some RS say that in their voice [19]).

WP:NPOV says Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)...WP:CONTENTIOUS says Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Also ping nableezy and ghazaalch who were part of the previous discussion. VR _talk 05:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree 'massacre' unattributed as a verb is inapt. Shall we all start scouring sources for graphic descriptors of what bombing and shelling does to the human body — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. Please stick to the sources. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources often use graphic descriptors of what bombing and shelling does to the human body. I wouldn't consider their use - especially in a lead - to be very helpful to understanding. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the event as a whole is rightly referred to as a massacre (ie that the title Alumim massacre is apt and acceptable), and then that the individual actions be referred to as kill, rape, immolate, ect. TimeEngineer (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) In this article I merely reverted to the version which had been stable almost since the creation of the article and that used "massacred". Pincrete, considering that this is the long-term stable version, can you please revert until and unless there is a consensus against it?

Reliable sources consistently use "massacred", to the point that our articles are titled with it, such as Re'im music festival massacre. As such, it is not our place to say that "massacred" is the wrong description; in fact, it would be an NPOV violation for us to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have just looked at about 5 revisions at random over the last week - all said 'attacked civilian communities', so no, I might be wrong but I'm not persuaded that 'massacred' was stable so I won't self-revert. I was at pains to say 'unattributed as a verb - it may be that 'massacre' is the commonname noun for some related events, I offer no opinion on that, but NPOV and style considerations suggest we use neutral factual language rather than value-laden terms within an article. I'm sure plenty of sources use powerful descriptors for what is happening to young bodies in Gaza at present and I would oppose them for the same reason. Pincrete (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

neutral factual language It is neutral and factual language. "Neutral" doesn't mean we can't use words like "massacred"; it means we can only use such words if reliable sources consistently do - which they do in this case.

What revisions did you check? My random sampling over the past week, starting prior to the most recent change, shows the opposite? BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The choice of revisions was random as I said. Initially I intended to revert but did a 'last minute check' before doing so. Given the 'current event' status of this article and the number of watchers, I would say that a version of even as little as 3 or 4 days vintage was 'stable'. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I looked at the first version for the last four days; each of them used "massacred":

• 31 October 2023
• 30 October 2023
• 29 October 2023
• 28 October 2023

Which is why I was asking which revisions you checked, as while little time passed between "massacred" being removed and my restoration of it a lot of edits were made, so I was wondering if your samples might have been entirely from within that period? BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The revisions I checked were random - I have no way of knowing now which they were. I offered my explanation as a courtesy, not to prove that 'my' version was stable, only that IMO it was within reasonable bounds and the issue should be decided by others. Unless we both spend hours checking every revision history, neither of our impressions about which was stable prove anything very much.

On a purely stylistic/semantic issue, can you 'massacre' or 'set fire to' a community? You can certainly massacre the members of a community and set fire to their homes and other buildings. Except for historical instances where whole communities were forced into a building, before setting fire to it and them, I'm not sure what 'set fire to a community' means. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

According to WikiBlame, apart from the recent change which I reverted, it has not been changed since the 26th, when Wh15tL3D09N switched massacred civilian communities to massacred and set fire to civilian communities. BilledMammal (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because that’s what they did and what happened. Just using correct syntax and calling it like it is, Jewish settlers massacred Palestinian civilians in the past too, and I would use massacre to describe those events as well. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops I meant diction not syntax. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I was wrong. I tried to do a search to see if Israelis did massacre Palestinians and they did not. There have been mass shootings and setting fires but not massacres. The diction is important it’s like the difference between gelato vs ice cream. Or almond milk vs oat milk. Or whole milk vs skim milk, or 70% dark chocolate vs %50 dark chocolate. They are different in regards to nutritional value, etc, etc even they are all frozen desserts, types of milk or dark chocolates. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

So what if reliable sources use the term "massacre"? Reliable doesn't mean unbiased and consequently we don't have to mirror the majority's bias. Afaik, titles are the only exception to WP:NPOV. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

My view's always been that Wikipedia stands for intellectual substance, and that emotive or sensationalism language doesn't belong here. An encyclopedia isn't just a collage of news articles. The reliability of sources means we must use them, for facts; it doesn't mean we must parrot their sensationalism, or have no content standards whatsoever. People will rebut: "well, okay, but tough luck; sources say it, and so should we". But our WP:BESTSOURCES, peer-reviewed scholarship, extensively documents the problems with media sensationalism; they critically analyze these word choices by the media, as revelatory of an outlet's bias. Are we not ignoring those scholarly sources, by treating breaking-news labels as gospel? Can we not admit that the choice between "massacre" and "killing" is a style choice, and that the difference between both terms isn't one of substance or rigorous definition, but one of emotional valence? How about admitting that the media has a tendency, documented by scholars, to ape the wording we choose, and editors' systemic inclination for emotive or pejorative language is affecting the sources we are asked to mimic? The day after the attack, Britannica, which at least aspires to professional formality, called it an "attack". Some news sources say "massacre", but many others call it an "attack". Are those not good enough? DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a style choice; the words have different meanings, and one is more accurate here. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The difference in meaning is in scale and manner, not in substance. Sources frequently use terms like 'slaughter' 'carnage' etc for events such as school shootings, these again imply large scale killing in a cruel manner, but how is it more informative to use such terms when we can simply state explicitly the number killed? Do we want this article to inform about the facts or just to use opposing emotional descriptors? News sources have a different agenda and often seek to communicate horror and disapproval. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough to comment on your hypotheticals about other articles.

We can't simply state the numbers because it tells the reader nothing about how they were killed; it omits critical facts about the brutality and deliberate nature. This is why we use it in articles like the following, rather than merely saying "killed" and providing the number:

• Khatyn massacre
• Rwandan genocide
• Deir Yassin massacre
• Srebrenica massacre

BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The last three use 'killed' almost throughout, Khatyn uses 'killed' after the lead sentence - despite the commonname article titles. You are proving my point for me. Srebrenica adds the adjective 'genocidal' to the first use of 'killing' because an international court has ruled it to be so. Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The last three use 'killed' almost throughout

• Khatyn massacre

  Uses "massacre[d]" 26 times, "killed/killing[s]" 5 times.

• Deir Yassin massacre

  Uses "massacre[d]" 51 times, "killed/killing[s]" 58 times.

• Srebrenica massacre

  Uses "massacre[d]" 118 times, "killed/killing[s]" 104 times.

The only exception is the Rwandan genocide, and that's because the focus of that article is the genocide, and not individual massacres that took place as part of the genocide.

Further, these articles start with "massacred", and then switch to "killed" once the information imparted by "massacred" is provided. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's misleading - on Katyn you appear to be counting uses in the infobox, the section titles and even the dismbiguator. Massacre is used once as a verb in the whole Katyn article. Deir Yassim never uses massacre as a verb, nor does Srebrenica. Using massacre as a noun - especially when it part of the commonname - is not the same as using it as a verb in our own text.

Even some of the 'noun uses' are referring to other 'killings' related to the articles or but are mostly 'back referring' to the article title itself. Obviously if writing about any subject we are going to use the article title frequently within the article. I've already said several times that if an event's commonname includes such a term, we obviously use it as the title. Not because it conveys the manner of the killing, but simply because it IS the commonname as this article shows the commonname may or may not convey any useful info, but we use it regardless. Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Deir Yassim never uses massacre as a verb, nor does Srebrenica.

At Deir Yassin massacre we have Some of the Palestinian Arab villagers were killed in the course of the battle, while others were massacred by the Jewish militias while trying to flee or surrender, and at Srebrenica massacre we have During the first three months of war, from April to June 1992, the Bosnian Serb forces, with support from the JNA, destroyed 296 predominantly Bosniak villages in the region around Srebrenica, forcibly uprooted some 70,000 Bosniaks from their homes and systematically massacred at least 3,166 Bosniaks (documented deaths) including many women, children and elderly. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are quite correct about that (limited) usage plus a quote in Srebrenica … I was correcting my post when I saw this one. The balance of usage is nothing like as straightforward as your numbers above claim however and there is no consistent pattern of 'first use' AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is in the lede at both Deir Yassin massacre and Khatyn massacre.

However, it comes down to what accurately represents what happened; what accurately represents the fact that gunmen went house to house, shooting, immolating, and butchering civilians? Killings, without additional context, doesn't - and while we can add context, and if we insist on not using "massacre" I will, this article and lede are already far too long. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

But presumably doesn't come down to what bombs, tank shells, shrapnel and falling concrete do to infant flesh? Anyone who needs to have it pointed out to them that killing around 1,400 people in a day is a fairly extreme and violent event needs a humanity transplant IMO. Ditto about what bombs do. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

However, while 1000+ people being killed is always horrific, depending on the circumstances it can be illegal or legal, immoral or amoral. While it is even more horrific when the 1000+ people are civilians, this remains true.

Just using "killed civilians" fails to make it clear that it is effectively undisputed that these actions were both illegal and immoral, and as such presents an NPOV problem. Previously, we addressed this by using "massacred civilians", but that is the wording you are arguing against. BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

immoral is a value judgment, and it is clear that is what you are aiming for here, to describe the actions of Hamas as immoral or amoral (those are not antonyms btw), and the actions by Israel as just and righteous. You have seriously misunderstood NPOV if you feel the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to act as judge of morality. nableezy - 13:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

it is clear that is what you are aiming for here Please don't cast aspersions. What I am aiming for here is for our article to accurately reflect reliable sources.

You have seriously misunderstood NPOV if you feel the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to act as judge of morality. It's not our place to judge morality; however, we are required to reflect the judgement of reliable sources. If reliable sources are in agreement that something is immoral then it would be a violation of NPOV for us not to say that it is immoral.

immoral or amoral (those are not antonyms btw) I am aware that they're not exactly antonyms; the use was very deliberate as the death of thousands is never moral. BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Youre the one that is saying you want to relay that some act was immoral. That isnt an aspersion to say that. And no, we describe disputes, not engage in them. Again, seriously misunderstanding what NPOV means here. nableezy - 13:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That isnt an aspersion to say that It is an aspersion to say and it is clear that is what you are aiming for here, to describe the actions of Hamas as immoral or amoral, and the actions by Israel as just and righteous. Please strike it.

And no, we describe disputes, not engage in them. I think you have misunderstood NPOV. We are allowed to use words with moral implications, if we are reflecting reliable sources in accordance with WP:DUE. If the significant view is that a crowd was a mob, then we must describe them as a "mob", even though the term has moral implications. If the significant view is that an event was a genocide, then we must describe it as a genocide, even though the term has moral implications.

That is what we would be doing by using "massacred" here. I'll add that there is no dispute here; there is no significant view that this event was not illegal and immoral. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is all the difference in the world between describing an event as a genocide - when all academic and/or legal sources describe it thus and pointlessly adding emotive descriptors in order to convey a moral judgement - even when that judgement is widespread, but by no means universal here. there is no significant view that this event was not illegal and immoral plenty of sources consider the actions of Hamas to have been horrific and war crimes, but not necessarily wholly 'immoral' in the context of occupation. Far more acts by Israel are deemed by the international community to be/have been illegal, but we record that neutrally within the article, not seek to imply it with the use of loaded terms or to intrude the judgement into the text.

The necessary corollary of your argument is that the second sentence of the lead should be Israeli military forces illegally responded with retaliatory strikes against Palestine's Gaza Strip + whatever juicy descriptors are widely used to describe those strikes. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli military forces illegally responded with retaliatory strikes against Palestine's Gaza Strip If the consensus of reliable sources is that the airstrikes are illegal then we should.

Regardless, since we're not really making any progress here, I've provided additional details in a more descriptive manner without using the word "massacred". BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry but we simply do not do that. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources call Israeli settlements a violation of international law. We do not state that as a fact in our own voice anywhere on Wikipedia. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources consider the Qibya massacre to be a massacre, we use massacre as a verb one time in the entire article. And you know why? Because you dont need to use emotive language to drive across a point that rounding up and killing innocent civilians in their village is wrong. And when you do, when you say "massacred ... massacred ... massacred" you stop looking like a serious source and start looking like a partisan one. Using these phrases like that devalues the point, not increases it. nableezy - 17:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources consider the Qibya massacre to be a massacre, we use massacre as a verb one time in the entire article. I'm not suggesting we use it repeatedly; I'm suggesting we use it once, in the lede, like is done at Qibya massacre and Deir Yassin massacre. If it is appropriate to do so there, then it is appropriate to do so here. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aticle titles are given an exception to use WP:POVNAME (I.e pov language) in case of overwhelming RS usage. VR _talk 11:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we cannot convince BilledMammal when they don't like it. They don't even care about reliable sources. Here for example they omit the facts (the numbers of the killings from the two sides) and add the word "massacred" and "civilians", while the given source (Reuters) does not say "Massacre" and the source does not say that all those killed were civilians. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

My primary argument is that - as much as possible - we should confine ourselves to the facts, especially in the lead, avoiding unattributed value judgements. HOWEVER, whilst 'massacre' is very common and even stronger terms are sometimes used (slaughtered) - I'm not convinced that 'massacre' is anything approaching the near-universal use as a verb - as claimed. Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

'Massacre' is clear POV language, as should be obvious. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Massacre is a short way to describe the events that happened on that day. Could write “Jewish civilians were allegedly tortured, dismembered, raped, etc.” Massacre has a very different definition than kill https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If the word "Massacre" is justified to be used for killing 1400 people, it is more justified to be used for killing 8000 people, most of them children and women.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Very well said. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As we are documenting in real time, we should use the most neutral terms (i.e. kill). Once time has passed and the fog has lifted, we can finetune the text based on scholarship. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

+1; zero issue with the term if it's what scholars use, and waiting helps prevent citogenesis DFlhb (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd only refer to it as a massacre if more than a majority of reliable sources note it as such. I think DUE should really guide where this goes. If it's listed as a massacre by most, it should be listed as a massacre here. If not, be safe with regard to NPOV and just say Killed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of military/militant operation names in Infobox

I think that the main infobox should include the names of Operation al-Aqsa Flood and Operation Swords of Iron (and links, where appropriate). Thoughts? TimeEngineer (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A little praise from the media

Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X, interesting article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we can't keep up with the latest technology by adding AI faked videos. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Good job everyone! 🙂 It is, in part, through our disagreements that we are able to carve out a neutral and informative article. VR _talk 14:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Harrison said in another article, "Knowledge production, at least in the Wikipedia sense, is part collaboration and part combat." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Better than Twitter" — Pretty low bar at the moment... well, it's something, isn't it? VintageVernacular (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's some more in the article text. Though Musk vs WP is the general topic. And, sadly, thousands of dead people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Twitter's "Community Notes" program — sometimes a favorite of Musk's and which is mentioned in that article — has a similar modus operandi to Wikipedia: consensus plus reliable sources. But its definition of a reliable source is more left up to the individual note contributor's interpretation. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, Wikipedia is dedicated to finding and presenting information; X isn't, it's a social media platform. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

IDF operations cannot be called like that

Articles about IDF operations during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (either specific operation, or several operations in the same area) are wrongly categorized under Category:Massacres of Palestinians and Category:Murder in Gaza, and their sub-categories. These terms (murder, massacre) are not in the article texts, and are not consensual. If anyone objects the removal of these categories from the articles, please explain. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Those Categories did not appear to be present in a later version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1182949566 Pmokeefe (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. This main article about the war is not there, but please see these categories and sub-categories for the lists of IDF operations wrongly included in them. TaBaZzz (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you call murder of innocent civilians with 100+ people being killed if not massacres? Gianluigi02 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A massacre would be the intentional mass killing. This was not intended by IDF. "innocent" is unproven and irrelevant to whether it is a massacre. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not yet know if some of the IDF mass killings were intentional. Certainly appear to have been. But doesn't matter. We must follow WP:RS, which will be primarily news sources before there is time for scholars to tie all the pieces together. And our RS are primarily Western sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Gianluigi02, we do not currently have sources for either "murder" or "massacre". The content decision needs to be based on the weight of RS narratives. For contemporaneous events, it's difficult to get unambiguous description, let alone evaluation of these events. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist organization abusing locals and use them as human shields - is what I’d call it. TaBaZzz (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM nableezy - 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move groups except Hamas into a collapsible list in the infobox

Proposed infobox
Location .
Belligerents
Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad Other groups: PFLP DFLP Other organizations Houthi movement	Israel
Commanders and leaders
Ismail Haniyeh Mohammed Deif Yahya Sinwar Abu Obaida Murad Abu Murad † Others: Ziyad al-Nakhalah Abu Hamza Abu Jamal Abu Khaled	Benjamin Netanyahu Benny Gantz Yoav Gallant Herzl Halevi Yoel Strick Tomer Bar Yaakov Shabtai Ronen Bar Yaron Finkelman
Units involved
Al-Qassam Brigades Nukhba Others: Al-Quds Brigades National Resistance Brigades Other armed groups	Israel Defense Forces Israel Police Shin Bet Armed Israeli civilians

The purpose of an infobox is to provide a brief summary of the article for the reader. However, in its current form, with all the groups participating, it can be confusing for readers. To avoid this confusion, I suggest moving all the groups except Hamas under a collapsible list. So far, only 1% of the fighting has taken place outside of Gaza Strip and with groups other than Hamas. Therefore, the infobox is creating undue weight of the conflict. Please see the examples provided below. Ecrusized (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think PIJ was a major belligerent on October 7 and even holds some of the hostages. The rest we can collapse. VR _talk 14:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That could also work. AFAIK PIJ also has a large number of active fighters in Gaza. I don't know the exact number of fighters the left wing groups have. Ecrusized (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Most of the fighting throughout the war has been predominantly and primarily Hamas. They're a huge component to the war compared to the other groups (with the exception of the PIJ). I think Hamas and PIJ should be the groups that shouldn't be in the collapsible list. Every other group should until one of them becomes more dominant and centrefold to the war. Nintenga (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, this change has been implemented before consensus here was even formed. The collapsible lists serve no purpose but to obstruct information under the pretext of "undue", when in reality both PFLP and DFLP] are operating within the Gaza Strip, and using its tunnel infrastructure, which are claimed as main military objectives by Israel. Also there are no precedents for this in any other Wikipedia article, not even the Syrian Civil War, whose infobox stretches more than the width of the article's prose. Restoring the long-standing version until consensus if formed here. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: There was a consensus of 4 to 1 here if you count myself and user Vice regent. Now it's at 5 to 2. Is your argument towards not collapsing PFLP and DFLP? The main problem imo is giving marginal groups who are barely involved, such as Houthis, the same amount of highlight as Hamas in this war. Also Syrian civil war infobox is a complete mess. Not mentioning that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF, it does not include all the belligerents of that conflict, which number over a few hundred. Ecrusized (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to start by reminding you that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that Wikipedia:Consensus states "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Please argue against my points so we can continue constructively editing the article without discussing other things. Hezbollah, a major belligerent, is in the collapsible list, which doesn't make much sense. The level of involvement of each group is usually elaborated in the strength section. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Its actually more confusing if you don't list all the belligerents, because then it gives the misimpression that only Hamas is doing the fighting, which is obviously not true.XavierGreen (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support all but PIJ. I modified the example to include it. – SJ + 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Support I believe this is a logical approach and will help organize the information presented and not give undue weight to minor parties. Jurisdicta (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, I think it is essentially WP:OR, unless there are WP:RSs that prove they're not important. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 01:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Israeli commanders

Some of the Israeli commanders and leaders seem inapt. Yoel Strick is described as a former ground forces commander - till 2021, while Benny Gantz is a former defence minister who joined the wartime cabinet as Minister without portfolio. It's possible that our articles are out of date, but as most of these names are new to me, I'm reluctant to remove them from the infobox without input from others. IMO we should confine ourselves to the two or three political leaders directly responsible for defence plus heads of the major services involved. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

For Israel, I would suggest the three members of the Israeli war cabinet, and remove the rest until we have reliable sources telling us who is in command of the Israeli war effort. Failing that, I would suggest we include Herzl Halevi, Tomer Bar, and Yaron Finkelman, who would appear to be the most relevant military commanders. BilledMammal (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. I removed a few, leaving in Finkelman and Bar. Do we normally include both service heads and the general chief of staff like Halevi? Shin Bet was included among the forces apparently because they reported 10 active duty or veterans among those killed on the first day; no indication they're otherwise among the forces deployed. – SJ + 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd support including Halevi again since he had to respond on allegations of intelligence failures in the Israeli Reactions section. Borgenland (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi I added 2 sources about Shin Bet, it clearly states that they are active with operations against Hamas. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Lebanon border clashes

@Gianluigi02: I don't think the clashes at the Lebanese border deserve a mention in the status section of this conflict. In terms of overall casualties of the war, the Lebanese sector composes less than 1% of all losses. I find it to be WP:CRYSTAL. There is a lot of speculation in the media about what the entry of Hezbollah into this war could mean in the future, but as long as it doesn't happen I don't think the article should be over attentive to Lebanon. Ecrusized (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is the deadliest and most serious escalation between Lebanon and Israel since 2006. Nearly 50 Hezbollah members killed, with nearly every day clashes. The fact that there's a spillover of the ongoing war is an important element. Gianluigi02 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is the deadliest and most serious escalation between Lebanon and Israel since 2006. I know. But it's marginal in the context of this war. Ecrusized (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not marginal, its a second front of the same conflict. The IDF has had to deploy troops to the north and has evacuated a large swath of territory of civilians. There has been sustained combat on the northern front since the second day of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The head of Hezbollah's giving a speech tomorrow where he's expected to make a big announcement, but unless he declares war I agree with OP. The conflict on the northern border has been pretty carefully choreographed up until now. Hezbollah's mainly confined its attacks to the Shebaa farms and minor stuff on Israeli military bases, but according to the Economist and the New Yorker rather than signalling an escalation this is more Hezbollah showing that it's maintaining the status quo since it's been launching tit for tat attacks on the Shebaa farms for decades. While it is true that Israel did evacuate parts of the Northern Border, it's also true that it's currently demobilizing troops on the border as well. One of the IDF commanders estimated the other day a 10-15% chance of war breaking out with Hezbollah. But it seems that's going down. Iran's also been noticeably quieter. Which is all to say that I agree with Ecrusized. Alcibiades979 (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's important enough for multiple world leaders to comment about, for Israel to maintain its forces at high alert, not to mention dozens of dead, then it is certainly important enough for the status section of this article. It is also central to the potential for wider conflict, to remove it is to remove fundamental context. Poliocretes (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've moved spillover conflicts in southern Lebanon and Syria at the top of the infobox next to location. Ecrusized (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless a major change occurs, I would go further and say that the location is Israel and the Gaza Strip, listing the West Bank as spillover. Animal lover |666| 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible synth

The article currently says,

Iranian role and the Israel–Saudi normalization talks

According to US intelligence reports, approximately 500 militants from Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, received specialized combat training in Iran. The training was conducted by officers from the Quds Force, the foreign-operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Senior Palestinian officials and Iranian Brig. Gen. Esmail Qaani, the head of Quds Force, were also in attendance.[20]

At the time of the attack, Israel and Saudi Arabia were conducting negotiations to normalize relations. Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman said normalization was "for the first time real"...

Is there any established connection between the (alleged) Iranian training of 500 militants and the (widely reported) Israeli-Saudi deal? If not, the two should not be connected together as if they are related.VR _talk 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not directly related. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas Leadership" section

The "Hamas leadership" section starts out with the following paragraph.

>The United States has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. The head of Hamas's political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist in 2018 due to his close ties to Hamas' military wing and advocacy for armed struggle, including against civilians.

This seems biased and undue to me, to emphasize the US opinion when it is clearly not a neutral party in this. Why is the US's opinion paramount here? What about the various countries who disagree with the characterization of Hamas as terrorist? JDiala (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a single sentence stating that Hamas is regarded terrorist by US, Israel etc should be included but the other details (like which year did the US apply sanctions on a Hamas leader) are unnecessary and should be removed. VR _talk 13:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Iranian Propaganda Poster

File:14020810000774638344554359651470 64810 fear of collapse.jpg

Non-English Iranian propaganda poster

We need to discuss this Iranian poster. It's been taken down and re-restored multiple times ([21], [22], [23]) in violation of the 1RR policy by User:Baratiiman—who has outright refused to discuss the inclusion image on the talk page. It's not in English and the "translation" on the caption as of 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) is unsourced. Personally, I think it should be removed. Thoughts? -- Veggies (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Parham wiki (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aside from what I just wrote above (did you read it?), the image is of dubious copyright status (where are these crudely photoshopped images from?), and it fails to "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" per the image use content guidelines. -- Veggies (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read it. If it is a copyright violation, it should be removed. Parham wiki (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been another poster inserted showing only a translation. Borgenland (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting, I just removed the new poster as a potential copyright violation. It was uploaded originally with a twitter URL on November 1 and was later changed to a 4.0 agreement URL which said it was published November 2. Given the date discrepancy, I nominated it for deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Baratiiman, I recommend you come to this discussion. In your recent restoration of the poster, you classified my removal as "vandalism". Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Since there is a potential copyright violation, we, as Wikipedia editors, have to remove it and ensure that all potential violations are investigated and double checked. If it is a violation, it would be removed immediately from the edit history, if not, then it would be restored. Since there is a risk though, it needs to remain off the article until it is determined that it isn't a copyright violation. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of addressing the concerns, said user has decided to "whatever is the equivalent of sue" on Wiki Veggies on bad faith assumptions on an improper forum. Given how unprofessional this action appears to be, should this be raised to the Incidents Noticeboard? Borgenland (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that. Either way, I did some digging. Chances are, the poster is safe for Wikipedia. However, an email verification is probably needed to clear up one minor thing. Basically, the media outlet (CC license says their website is 4.0) published the poster image on Twitter on November 1 (No author). The media outlet then released the poster image on Nov 2, saying it was created on Nov 1 by a person. (1) the person who created it needs to be verified that they work for the media outlet or gave it to them & (2 - piggy backing on #1) determine if the image (posted on Twitter before the media outlet) is truly under a 4.0 license. The Commons license tag says "This is a file from the Ali Khamenei website...4.0..." (key: not all products, only website, mentioned in the CC lisense) and so forth. However, since the image was posted originally on Twitter, not the website, and was uploaded to the Commons using the Twitter source as the URL, the details need clarified. That's the whole issue. I do think it is safe, but until we are confirmed it is safe, it was best to remove it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional: I think it is probably similar to the NOAA/US Gov license where it truly is all products, but since the CC license currently states only the website is 4.0, the risk is still present. And, with copyright, technicalities mean all the difference. Hope that clears up the copyright concern for everyone. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My concern with said user is that they make incoherent, grammatically erroneous edits and bare url links and have to be prodded to fix their act. If the poster is to be uploaded again, we will probably need another fluent user to provide an accurate caption and description. Borgenland (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is still their assumption of bad faith on Veggies and on you. Borgenland (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I just got my answer ([24]). The user got warned by a Commons admin for uploading copyrighted content repeatedly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My concerns (apart from the copyright question) is that—at least for the "fear of collapse" poster—I don't see a plainly clear encyclopedic purpose for the image. It looks like the cheapest Juche state propaganda. At least the "power of faith determines the battle" poster was less overt and had English-language text. Apart from any copyright issues, I didn't (necessarily) oppose its inclusion. My central issue in this mess is Baratiiman's outright refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page and his edit-warring (of which I'm guilty as well), but primarily his violation of the BRD process. I'm certainly open to including an encyclopedic-quality propaganda poster for use on the article, but not if I'm going to be strong-armed by someone who won't discuss the problems. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:I agree that the translation shouldn't be included, but I see no reason the poster itself can't be. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon looking at the file some more, I agree that the file appears of dubious legality. The file claims to be from a source that is in the creative commons, but the link to the file directly contradicts this. I propose we keep it off until it can be verified. I've started a discussion on the Commons. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have so many articles about this war?

We have Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war but also Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, we have articles for any Israeli incursion into the West Bank (October 2023 Jenin incursion, October 2023 Tulkarm raid), we have an independent separate massacre article for pretty much every single Israeli settlement where Hamas militants entered and Israeli civilians died, we have battle articles that even after a month are composed of one or two paragrapgs (Battle of Re'im, Battle of Sufa), we have Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes but also 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia, we have Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks but also Houthi involvement in the 2023 Hamas-Israel war, we have Violence against journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war but also List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

How is literally everything about this war such a mess in Wikipedia? I would have expected the opposite considering the huge attention it receives. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's much easier to create a fork

than it is to distort the consensus of high trafficked y tpages, and the ECP barrier does not apply to page creatiothe Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you skeptical that all those articles meet GNG or other notability, verifiability requirements? If so, you should probably take your concerns to AFD. Apart from that, I don't see how multiple, focused sub-articles mean that "everything about this war" is "such a mess". -- Veggies (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you skeptical that all those articles meet GNG or other notability, verifiability requirements? pretty much. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"If so, you should probably take your concerns to AFD" -- Veggies (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I merged one and was reverted. Probably most editors are leaving them alone to avoid the drama; they'll get fixed eventually. I wonder if the Ukraine invasion editors faced the same issue. DFlhb (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of ferment around major current events, and wars in particular spin out specific named fronts, conflicts, and events at a rapid pace. Often the creators of new articles don't know that others exist. I agree that our general style should be a small number of well-maintained and -read articles; don't be shy about proposing merges. Having a temporary proliferation of stubs can be okay, but we should keep stubs out of the main navboxes or high-profile templates that show up on scores of other pages. – SJ + 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If pages on this topic are created by non-ECP people then they should be deleted. G5 criterion can be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been active in Ukraine war topics since day one, and while there's been a fair amount of forks, it's been much more organized in my personal opinion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In editing the Ukraine timeline, it seems that it takes a minimum of five dead for a single incident to merit its own standalone article. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Also Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Should Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza Wars address the current conflict?

The title currently covers two previous conflicts, which suggests that it should either be expanded to cover the current one, or renamed to clarify its range of coverage. BD2412 T 23:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it should cover the current one too. These might be useful: [25][26][27][28][29][30]. Likely [31] (attributed). Possibly [32] though it's not part of the 3 wars. Hopefully it says focused on true state-issued propaganda by either party, not loose uses of the word which belong in the disinfo article. DFlhb (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ECP talk page notice

I propose adding the following notice at the top of this page

Feel free to copyedit. Any objections? NotAGenious (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, the talkpage blue-lock is not that obvious. Does it have an end-date, btw? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's indefinite. NotAGenious (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am just not sure if this is needed. Given the EC protection notice lists Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, as long as you read it properly (Which anyone who wants to make an edit request should be doing anyway). There are already enough notices on this page and adding more isn't the best thing to do. Terasail^[✉️] 13:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Terasail likewise, it also says to discuss changes on the talk page. This new ribbon will make it explicitly clear to request changed at that link. — Karnataka ^talk 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The page has already been indefinitely protected per this. Also there is a big box at top headed "Warning: active arbitration remedies" including the 500 edits, etc.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is about the article. It's not that common for the talkpage to be bluelocked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's about the talk page (the indefinite protection). Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not per my reading:

"The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:"

And the box below states:

"...come here to the talk page to discuss..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I will copy the link out in full, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_25#Talk_page_indefinitely_EC_protected. OK? Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that thread is not easily visible to editors who arrive on this talkpage wishing to comment. NotAGenious' suggested banner would provide a visible (though not necessarily actually seen) explanation on why such editors can't edit this talkpage.

When I replied "that is about the article" to you, I meant the big box at top, not the link, sorry if that was unclear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

They are talking about a possible template for non EC users here that might end up solving the problem (although I have my doubts about people reading any of these different templates). Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully some do notice them. At least they can give regulars something easy to point to when asked (won't apply in this case, since the people who may want to ask here can't ask here). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

One idea could be to make a bigger version of the bluelocks etc with some explanatory text for talkpage use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

U.S. reconnaissance drones operating over Gaza

According to the NYT, U.S. MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones are aiding Israel in its hostage recovery efforts. NYT notes that the flights suggest "a more active American role".[33] Earlier in the conflict U.S. Navy destroyers were used to intercept Houthi missiles fired at Israel.[34] Once again, it might be appropriate to reconsider the U.S. involvement and whether to place it into the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's actively running surveillance in the war, alongside numerous other forms of non-combat assistance in terms of logistics and strategic planning. Literally the only thing not confirmed is boots on the ground. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: Agree with you both. Also, maybe this AP piece is further backing your suggestion. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a belligerent. There is an open RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

clearing?

@Vice regent: Given this edit by you, can you say how the stated source supports "clearing"? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but this source says "The Israeli army took more time than expected to clear the area that Hamas took in its surprise dawn raid." Would you propose a different phrasing? VR _talk 20:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

US support

The US is flying drones to aid the finding of hostages, this is a direct involvement in the conflict, and should be reflected in the infobox accordingly; not to mention the deployment of advisors to the Israeli military, among other things. [35]: "he US military is flying surveillance drones over Gaza as part of American efforts to help Israel locate the more than 240 hostages" Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you completely fail to see the section above that addresses that very same exact issue you're bringing up as well as the open RfC? Why do people fail to read the talk page before opening new, repeat sections? -- Veggies (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

War Spillover organization

Can we figure out how this article (2023 Israel–Hamas war), the 2023 American–Middle East conflict, the American intervention in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian civil war, the Rojava conflict, the American intervention in Yemen, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict all link up? There is overall confusion between editors specifically for the 2023 American–Middle East conflict, which currently is marked as: Part of the American intervention in the Syrian civil war, the Rojava conflict and spillover in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. However, since it is part of the Syrian civil war, it is unable to be added to the List of wars involving the United States. But if the 2023 American–Middle East conflict is spill-over from this war (2023 Israel–Hamas war) and is part of the overall Syrian civil war, how do we organize it? At the time of writing this, I marked this article as spill-over from the 2023 American–Middle East conflict, but should it be marked as spill-over from the Syrian civil war? Lot's of inter-linking and organization mess.

This discussion was started on this article talk page specifically, since it is more on how do we organize this war compared to all the other conflicts in the same region. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm lost, why do they need to "link up"? How do you actually do that? Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The "link-ups" (not sure whatelse to call them) are in the infoboxes are the top. For example, currently, this war article is "Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and spillover from the American–Middle East conflict". If you look at the Syrian civil war infobox, it is "Part of the Arab Spring, Arab Winter, the spillover of the War in Iraq, war against the Islamic State, war on terror, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict and the Kurdish–Turkish conflict". That is what I mean by "link-ups". It's a mess trying to figure it out right now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)